Coming Soon To America

[Jake255]

Have you ever studied socialism?

yes, it's the next step before communism and I'm thinking it's swaying more and more that way.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

All welfare and social programs would be fixed immediately if people just used them when they needed it and got off as soon as possible. Most these days get nice and comfortable and never get off.

I agree abuse is a major problem.

 

[rambot]

There is this verse:
2 Thess 3:10
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

That's right! I remember that whole theme in the Bible "Charity is for losers and if you aren't good enough to work, I want you to go and die".

Quoting the Bible as a means of arguing against sharing wealth is stupid.

 

[allhart]

That's right! I remember that whole theme in the Bible "Charity is for losers and if you aren't good enough to work, I want you to go and die".

Quoting the Bible as a means of arguing against sharing wealth is stupid.

God knocks on our heart that only has a handle from the inside. God doesn't force himself onto no one. In-like the liberals want to.
Liberals Statistically donate less to the cause of the poor than Christians do!

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

yes, it's the next step before communism and I'm thinking it's swaying more and more that way.

That looks like a huge no.

 

[okafor]

All welfare and social programs would be fixed immediately if people just used them when they needed it and got off as soon as possible. Most these days get nice and comfortable and never get off.

That's not an aberration, that's human nature. And it's precisely why our founding fathers wrote a Constitution limiting government power, specifically leaving charity to the states and private insitutions.

 

[Jake255]

That's right! I remember that whole theme in the Bible "Charity is for losers and if you aren't good enough to work, I want you to go and die".

Quoting the Bible as a means of arguing against sharing wealth is stupid.

Yes, but what is really stupid is when you took my response out of context in response to another post, where it was IN the context.

Hmmm...I'm recalling a certain democratic liberal party who does this all the time, too.

It's called deceit.

 

[Jake255]

That's not an aberration, that's human nature. And it's precisely why our founding fathers wrote a Constitution limiting government power, specifically leaving charity to the states and private insitutions.

Exactly! Another person who gets it.

We have a Constitution, but it seems to be an annoying piece of paper getting in the way of our current administration.

The Constitution was instituted for a reason, and now it's getting walked all over.

 

[okafor]

Exactly! Another person who gets it.

We have a Constitution, but it seems to be an annoying piece of paper getting in the way of our current administration.

The Constitution was instituted for a reason, and now it's getting walked all over.

Yup, it's just a speed bump. And, hey, what did OB have to say about the Constitution? Well it's all wrong, since it only articulates negative rights, not positive rights. It should tell us everything the government should be doing for us to make us comfortable. Heck, how about a one sentence liberal Consitution:

"The government has the authority to provide all goods and services to protected political classes, as identified by the Democratic party, to be paid for by non-protected poltical classes."

Let's just make it nice and easy, get rid of the bother of having to argue about that living document stuff. What the heck, isn't that what liberals have wanted all along, a new enlightened progressive aristocracy with the power of the government at their disposal?

 

[Jake255]

Yup, it's just a speed bump. And, hey, what did OB have to say about the Constitution? Well it's all wrong, since it only articulates negative rights, not positive rights. It should tell us everything the government should be doing for us to make us comfortable. Heck, how about a one sentence liberal Consitution:

"The government has the authority to provide all goods and services to protected political classes, as identified by the Democratic party, to be paid for by non-protected poltical classes."

Let's just make it nice and easy, get rid of the bother of having to argue about that living document stuff. What the heck, isn't that what liberals have wanted all along, a new enlightened progressive aristocracy with the power of the government at their disposal?

That is so true!

Maybe people need a history lesson of the original purpose of the US government.

It was not established to take care of our retirement money, called Social Security, which was only established during the depression.

Why can't WE keep our money and invest it into our own retirement program?

Why are we now forced to have gov't insurance? Since when are we made to be a consumer of a product that we may or may not want?

If there were poor people, the church and the community used to take care of them, but this wasn't good enough, so our gov't had to be involved and WOW has it been abused because there is no accountability.

When the gov't gets involved, you know it's gonna go downhill.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Look I have family members that are disabled...... No need to be politically correct when needing to be distinctive. I wouldn't say that to a disabled persons face to hurt their feelings. Furthermore they have more graceful and loving than anyone here! GENUINE!

Except of course you.

So you say one thing to a disabled person's face and call them a "retard" on an anonymous "Christian" board?

That's truly graceful and "loving". I bet the "retards" around you are so appreciative!

 

[allhart]

Except of course you.

So you say one thing to a disabled person's face and call them a "retard" on an anonymous "Christian" board?

That's truly graceful and "loving". I bet the "retards" around you are so appreciative!

Whatever..... Get over yourself. When people don't have substanant material they tend to character assassinate.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Our healthcare is not going to get any better if that is what you are worried about at the moment. If infant mortality rate is bad now, just wait and see what it's going to be like.

Just a quick question: when I say we don't have the lowest infant mortality rate despite having the highest per capita outlay for healthcare in the developed world what do you think that means?

It means the American system is already severely broken. There are many "social medicine" type countries that do better than we do in key metrics like lifespan.

I am curious why a "conservative" would think it is a reasonable thing to overpay for poorer performance.

Interesting. So I guess we can generally dismiss the "conservative" view of economics in general if they think that's a good deal, right?

Here's a nice graph (SOURCE)

Boy those social welfare-heavy countries look pretty awful what with paying a WHOLE LOT LESS and having LOWER INFANT MORTALITY rates than the U.S. Gosh, that's a real selling point against social medicine isn't it? Yikes!

We can not "AFFORD" obama care.

But you think we can afford paying nearly 2X the per capita rate of the nearest industrialized nation for healthcare?

Interesting logic! I am so impressed with "Conservative Math"!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Whatever..... Get over yourself. When people don't have substanant material they tend to character assassinate.

Get over myself? Interesting.

Can I ask you why you don't call them "retards" to their face? Why do you call them that here but not to their face?

 

[Jake255]

Just a quick question: when I say we don't have the lowest infant mortality rate despite having the highest per capita outlay for healthcare in the developed world what do you think that means?

It means the American system is already severely broken. There are many "social medicine" type countries that do better than we do in key metrics like lifespan.

I am curious why a "conservative" would think it is a reasonable thing to overpay for poorer performance.

Interesting. So I guess we can generally dismiss the "conservative" view of economics in general if they think that's a good deal, right?

Here's a nice graph (SOURCE)

Boy those social welfare-heavy countries look pretty awful what with paying a WHOLE LOT LESS and having LOWER INFANT MORTALITY rates than the U.S. Gosh, that's a real selling point against social medicine isn't it? Yikes!



But you think we can afford paying nearly 2X the per capita rate of the nearest industrialized nation for healthcare?

Interesting logic! I am so impressed with "Conservative Math"!

No, we can not afford Obama Care, they can't even balance the budget without having to raise the debt limit - where have you been? Do you know the finanical crisis our country is in - do you live in the U.S.? I'm just surprised that someone is not aware of this. And continues to tell us all how we can afford it as a country, is this a joke or what?

I think you need to research the pharmacuetical companies and their impact on American citizens before you start discussing the "quality of healthcare". Instead of going straight to the problem, which is those pharma countries want us all addicted to their medicines, and have NO regulations as far as cost of drugs.

If the gov't wants to be involved, then why haven't they stepped up and taken control of the pharma companies? The reason? MONEY. People are making billions of $$'s off the pharma companies and they do not want changes to them. So instead of the gov't making changes there, they attack the insurance companies and blame it on them, when, in fact, it is the pharma companies who 1). cause US citizens their healtcare issues 2). charge an enormous amount of money to insurance companies and/or the citizen themselves.

We're chasing our tails with obamacare, the quality will not change in the least and will more than likely decrease. Instead of being #37 out of ALL the 100's of countries in the world, we'll be up in the 3 number range.

 

[underheaven]

Get over myself? Interesting.

Can I ask you why you don't call them "retards" to their face? Why do you call them that here but not to their face?

Because we sometimes need to be able just to do it.Were human after all
and 'hyperbole' is just a way of expressing frustration.
I don't mind if people call me idiot etc .when it is to let off steam.
Suppressing in a hypocritical p.c. manner is more dangerous,because they always miss the real target of evil. deliberately.

 

[Umaro]

ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY MORE FOR THE GOODS AND SERVICES? Apparently Americans so far AREN'T because we are shipping off jobs that are currently handled by regular folks every day in the computer field.

This is the part I don't get, especially given that it's so industry specific. If a job is able to be outsourced, people seem unwilling to pay even slightly more for it. "Pay $20 for a fan so an American can live a decent life? Nah, I'll only pay $10 for it from Chinese wage slaves."

But when it's a job you don't have a choice over, people don't seem to mind getting shafted. "Bank charged me $200 for overdrawing by $0.39? Can't be helped."

It's set up an interesting dynamic. The people that have the power are overpaid, and the people that don't have the power are underpaid, and losing ground as we speak. People say "oh, the CEO earned that $30 million this year," but I'm sure someone overseas could do his job just as well for a fraction of the price, there's just no one above him to outsource his job.

 

[Icewater]

but I'm sure someone overseas could do his job just as well for a fraction of the price, there's just no one above him to outsource his job.

Or even someone here could do his job just as well for a fraction of the price.

I'd take a cushy CEO job for a measly few hundred thousand, and with a bit of training I could probably do better than many current CEOs to boot.

 

[AceHero]

There is this verse:
2 Thess 3:10
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

So disabled, poor, and retired people should just starve to death?

The government is not a business!! It's the gov't. We can not have our gov't running insurance companies, car companies or anything else company! Keep the gov't out of business.

They're also in the airport business, the education business, the energy business, the engineering business, the firefighting business, the forestry business, the highway business, the library business, the medical and scientific research business, the park business, the police business, the postal service and delivery business, the transit business, the water business...

So good luck getting the government out of business.

Our healthcare is not going to get any better if that is what you are worried about at the moment. If infant mortality rate is bad now, just wait and see what it's going to be like.

Uh, better?

Keep entitlement programs out of our gov't and keep it in public charitable organizations. It's not that difficult to figure out.

That would be nice, but non-profits can't take all of the responsibility.

Our gov't was set up to govern people NOT to take care of them.

At all? What about in the Constitution where it says to "provide for the...general Welfare?"

Have you ever studied socialism?

yes, it's the next step before communism and I'm thinking it's swaying more and more that way.

So is Tea Party conservatism the next step before fascism? (No, and socialism isn't a step away from Stalinism)

Liberals Statistically donate less to the cause of the poor than Christians do!

Liberals can't be Christians?

Why can't WE keep our money and invest it into our own retirement program?

A lot of people live paycheck to paycheck and don't have that choice.

 

[okafor]

At all? What about in the Constitution where it says to "provide for the...general Welfare?"

The Constitution actually says "...to promote the general welfare", and it doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

The authority of the goverment to "promote the general welfare" is limited to the enumerated powers, and nothing else.